Nowhere does the book mention "holo-bloggers" like Romanov or like Muehlenkamp, which is supposed to confirm, like Mattogno had written, that no Holocaust historian takes them seriously.

Mattogno's wishful thinking obviously made him jump to conclusions that are not necessarily justified (blog sites are not a source that historians tend to refer to in academic publications, independently of their contents), but I wouldn't bother if he were right. I’m happy with being taken seriously by the "Revisionist" movement's foremost coryphée, as I obviously am judging by, among other things, our long discussion about Bełżec mass graves and archaeology (my response to what Thomas Kues called Mattogno’s "important work" BEŁŻEC E LE CONTROVERSIE OLOCAUSTICHE DI ROBERTO MUEHLENKAMP is still waiting for Mattogno's rejoinder more than two years after publication of the last installment – Mattogno had a go at the first and second installments but then apparently threw in the towel) and the need he felt to state, in his short blog about the Neue Studien zu nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas, that this book doesn’t mention either Sergey Romanov or me.

Mattogno's apparent obsession with his blogosphere opponents also kept him from realizing the implications of this statement, which is that even amateur "holo-bloggers" like Sergey and me, who are not mentioned in publications of academic historiography, can make mincemeat of the falsehoods peddled by Mattogno and his cronies. Maybe that is one of the reasons why, in an academic publication with 424 pages of main text, which expressly declares "Revisionist" denial to be one of its issues, the current flagship of "Revisionism" is mentioned exactly twice (as one of Italy’s "Revisionists" besides Claudio Moffa on page 375, and as the author of an article about Sachsenhausen concentration camp in the "Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung", briefly summarized on pages 390-91).

5 comments:

And I just discovered an amusing argument:In their "irrefutable" book on Treblinka, Mattogno & Graf,on p. 255, want us blockheads to understand that there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, a policy of Massenvernichtung of the Jews, and on the other hand, a policy of Judenumsiedlung. A very strong argument for this absolutely decisive distinction is, we are told, provided by this quotation from Ereignismeldung Nr. 54, Aug. 14, 1941: The task of the great mass of Jews should be the "Kultivierung der grossen Pripjetsümpfe sowie der Sümpfe am nördlichen Dnjepr sowie an der Wolga."Great: Hitler was nice to the Jews, just work, no Vernichtung.So, yes, there is a big difference, the difference between life and death. -But, oh,wait a minute, on p. 316, we are given the full passage from EM Nr. 52: " Die überzähligen jüdischen Massen können nämlich zur Kultivierung der grossen Pripjetsümpfe sowie der Sümpfe am nördlichen Dnjepr sowie an der Wolga ausgezeichnet verwendet und verbraucht werden."Allow me to wonder what "verbraucht" is supposed to mean here?This can only mean "die völlige Ausnutzung" (ibid. p. 316), i.e. Vernichtung durch Arbeit. The telegram from Hinrich (not Heinrich) Lohse quoted on p. 317, to the same effect.So where do Mattogno and Graf see the big difference?On the other hand, Faurisson seems to support Graf & Mattogno, for the purpose of hard work was not Vernichtung, for "they will be people trained to hard work and they will be able to have kibbutz" Source: Did Six Million Really Die? Toronto 1992, p. 344).Unfortunately, I cannot find anything in the Ereignismeldungen suggesting that the purpose of having the Jews work so hard in the swamps was to prepare them so that they would be "able to have kibbutz".Perhaps Graf & Mattogno do not dare to mention this possibility - hard work in order "to have kibbutz" - for fear that Faurisson might object, as he typically does: " "No, excuse me, the text does not say so!"

"It’s not like historians completely ignore Holocaust Controversies, by the way."

Bad news for Mattogno and other holocaust "revisionists". This blog is well noted by historians.

Adding to what Robert said, every historian who reads in Portuguese and accesses the Holocaust-doc (blog), it checks the Holocaust Controversies, not only for the link on the blog, but also for the translation of many texts from HC into Portuguese.

People from Spain, UK, France and mainly from Brazil, Portugal, USA and Germany. The number of blog readers in Germany who reads the other blog in portuguese is ranked in fourth position(I think it's amazing). All these people read the Holocaust Controversies too.

I had found the percentage of countries that access this blog, I think in Alexa, but I'm not finding more the part that indicates the percentage of readers for countries, that had indicated a total of almost 50% of readers from U.S. and 50 % of readers elsewhere.

The author of EM 54 was none other than Otto Rasch, who wrote in EM 86 a month later:

"There is only one possibility, which the German administration in the General Gouvernement has not sufficiently understood for a long time, the solution of the Jewish problem by extensive labor utilization of the Jews. This will result in a gradual liquidation of the Jews, a development which corresponds to the economic conditions of the country."